Copyright infringement benefits copyright holder

Dave Blackhurst · July 28th, 2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve House

Well, consider that YouTube would have no way of knowing in advance if the poster had properly licensed the song or not, they wouldn't be just pulling everything discovered to contain material whose copyright is owned by a third party. I'd think it would require a complaint from the copyright owner that the music was unlicensed and its use infringing to trigger the removal.

"...captured on tape for private use" ... Yes, except this isn't that. "Private use" would mean your personal viewing pleasure in your own home or shared with friends at a party, etc. The original purpose of the video would probably indeed be a private use. But the couple posting the video on YouTube or some other public venue or the wedding videographer posting it as a sample on his web site or YouTube/Vimeo/etc takes it completely out of the realm on "private use" IMHO. It's now a public performance in the first case and defintely commercial use for advertising and promotion in the case of the videographer doing the posting. When the wedding videographer posts the video containing the track on the web, it's really no different from Ford running a national network television ad using the music in the soundtrack.

Steve -
I think Denise answered the question - You Tube has a rights program in place, interestingly enough with a provision to allow monetization (or REMOVAL) - the IP holder has options.

I think you missed something, or maybe you're just restating the argument? The wedding WAS a "friends at a party" situation, as I already stated. I think the "videographer" was NOT a professional (at least I'd hope not, good content, but really bad camera "technique", unless one is an amateur or shooting a Bourne sequel), so again I'd suspect an exception might apply, though "incidental" is REALLY stretching, but with it being a video for personal use... probably wouldn't be a problem or worth an IP holder even pursuing.

YES, posting to the "public" web is infringement extrordinaire... whoever does it. Period. Unless the IP holder has authorized it, and hopefully figured out and made arrangements for a way to monetize it, it's infringement/misappropriation of someone else's "property".

Adding "credits" isn't that unusual, but of no help other than perhaps showing an "attempt" to benefit the artist.

Denise Wall · August 16th, 2009, 08:00 AM

As an update, this video has over 20 million hits on YouTube and they now have a link up to donate money toward prevention of domestic violence. Meanwhile, Chris Brown is still in the top 100 of songs (all genres) on iTunes.

These poor people. She probably planned on using this song way before the Chris Brown/Rihanna disturbance. I bet she never dreamed they would end up under national scrutiny by dancing to this song at her wedding, having someone in the audience video it, and putting it up on YouTube thinking only the wedding participants would see it.

I hope she's getting some business for her dance studio because of it.

Shaun Roemich · August 16th, 2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denise Wall

and they now have a link up to donate money toward prevention of domestic violence. .

OK, now herein lies the "rub": NOW, by posting a link to support for domestic violence, the well meaning poster MAY have really overstepped the bounds. He/she has now (in my opinion deliberately) made a link between the artist AND domestic violence. If I was the artist, I'd be suing. This is the same thing that cheap tabloid news does:

Shot 1: guys wearing cloth on their heads walking up a street
Shot 2: a building blowing up in a sandy country I've never been to

This INTIMATES that the guys wearing cloth on their heads were RESPONSIBLE for the building blowing up.

I would suggest that in this case, whatever monetary gains were made by the artist MAY have been negated by the loss of "credibility" and the online slandering of the artist by a well intentioned video poster. If I were the artist's lawyer, that is...

Dave Blackhurst · August 16th, 2009, 01:14 PM

And THERE's the slippery slope of copyright.

I think most times when the topic comes up here, the poster is thinking "why would anyone mind if I used a tune on a nice wedding video for this nice couple?" But what if that video was of a different nature, say "adult entertainment"? Or how would YOU feel if somehow a clip of your work was used to promote a service or organization you are morally or ethically opposed to?? And without asking you or compensating for the use to boot?

The fundamental reasoning behind copy RIGHT is to allow the creator of a work to control its use, meaning they could GIVE it to one party to use if they so choose and document it, and charge the next party $1 million dollars.

Copy RIGHT is in the end no different from any other property RIGHT - you can use your house (presuming you're not breaking any laws) as you choose, you can rent it out, let a friend stay there while you stay at their flat in France, etc. The only difference is that IP is easy to "copy" using mechanical/electronic/digital means, so it doesn't register on the same level - plus there's the added complication that typically you're not "buying" a copy, but rather licensing that copy...

Yet it's still nothing more complicated that the "owner/creator" of a piece of property having the RIGHT to control the destiny of that propery, how it's used and how the owner/creator benefits from it.

And with the internet (remember banner ads that promoted something less than savory on someone's website, soomething they never would knowingly promote, but because it was part of some link exchange...), the risk of an unfortunate "association" for a "repurposed" chunk of 1's and 0's becomes even more "interesting"....

Denise Wall · August 16th, 2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

OK, now herein lies the "rub": NOW, by posting a link to support for domestic violence, the well meaning poster MAY have really overstepped the bounds. He/she has now (in my opinion deliberately) made a link between the artist AND domestic violence. If I was the artist, I'd be suing...

He plead guilty to beating up Rihanna. It may not be the best publicity for him. But it's not libel if it's true.

Shaun Roemich · August 16th, 2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denise Wall

He plead guilty to beating up Rihanna. It may not be the best publicity for him. But it's not libel if it's true.

Civil suits are USUALLY won by the party most financially able to litigate. Guilty or not, if harm can be reasonably proven even a guilty party can cause an "offending" party IMMENSE financial hardship.

Dave Blackhurst · August 16th, 2009, 10:42 PM

Two points...

#1 - TRUTH is only an "affirmative defense", which doesn't keep you out of Court, or reduce the financial burdens, even defending oneself when completely innocent can be ruinous, as Shaun points out.

#2 - I believe that when someone is a "public figure", the general standards for slander and libel become greatly reduced - otherwise the tabloids would have nothing at all to say. If Mr. Brown has as a matter of record pled guilty, it's public record, AND he is a highly public figure, so it's unlikely that he would go into a Court and find a receptive Judge... though anything is possible.

Arguing that he was libeled somehow by the association with a anti-abuse charity organization would be one heck of a stretch IMO. He'd be better to play it as his own idea to make things "right", and it'd be "money in the bank" to repair his image...

Denise Wall · October 9th, 2009, 01:34 PM

Again, Chris Brown's "Forever" re-enters the iTunes top 100 chart, currently at #24, after The Office, a popular US comedy show, does a take-off on Jill and Kevin's wedding video for Jim and Pam's wedding episode last night. The original YouTube video currently has over 27 million hits.

I wonder if this video would have had the same appeal if it had been professionally shot?

Adam Reuter · October 9th, 2009, 05:06 PM

My take on Copyright laws:

It's a good thing.

And the arrangement YouTube/Google made with record companies is a good thing. YouTube avoids lawsuits and the recording industry makes a potential profit.

Copyright is all about protecting someones right to copy. Just look at the word! Since it costs a lot of money to send lawyers out to people, especially people who aren't really causing damage (in many cases of online videos there would be little monetary basis to sue upon) the compromise/solution that YouTube came up with (iTunes/Amazon.com links) is cool.

The YouTube user doesn't get slapped with a lawsuit/doesn't lose their YouTube account, YouTube/Google doesn't get slapped with an infringement lawsuit and the record company's/artists profit. Everyone wins.

August 16th, 2009, 08:00 AM	#17
Denise Wall Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Advance, NC Posts: 153	Update As an update, this video has over 20 million hits on YouTube and they now have a link up to donate money toward prevention of domestic violence. Meanwhile, Chris Brown is still in the top 100 of songs (all genres) on iTunes. These poor people. She probably planned on using this song way before the Chris Brown/Rihanna disturbance. I bet she never dreamed they would end up under national scrutiny by dancing to this song at her wedding, having someone in the audience video it, and putting it up on YouTube thinking only the wedding participants would see it. I hope she's getting some business for her dance studio because of it.

October 9th, 2009, 01:34 PM	#23
Denise Wall Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Advance, NC Posts: 153	Update Again, Chris Brown's "Forever" re-enters the iTunes top 100 chart, currently at #24, after The Office, a popular US comedy show, does a take-off on Jill and Kevin's wedding video for Jim and Pam's wedding episode last night. The original YouTube video currently has over 27 million hits. I wonder if this video would have had the same appeal if it had been professionally shot?

August 16th, 2009, 01:14 PM	#19
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	And THERE's the slippery slope of copyright. I think most times when the topic comes up here, the poster is thinking "why would anyone mind if I used a tune on a nice wedding video for this nice couple?" But what if that video was of a different nature, say "adult entertainment"? Or how would YOU feel if somehow a clip of your work was used to promote a service or organization you are morally or ethically opposed to?? And without asking you or compensating for the use to boot? The fundamental reasoning behind copy RIGHT is to allow the creator of a work to control its use, meaning they could GIVE it to one party to use if they so choose and document it, and charge the next party $1 million dollars. Copy RIGHT is in the end no different from any other property RIGHT - you can use your house (presuming you're not breaking any laws) as you choose, you can rent it out, let a friend stay there while you stay at their flat in France, etc. The only difference is that IP is easy to "copy" using mechanical/electronic/digital means, so it doesn't register on the same level - plus there's the added complication that typically you're not "buying" a copy, but rather licensing that copy... Yet it's still nothing more complicated that the "owner/creator" of a piece of property having the RIGHT to control the destiny of that propery, how it's used and how the owner/creator benefits from it. And with the internet (remember banner ads that promoted something less than savory on someone's website, soomething they never would knowingly promote, but because it was part of some link exchange...), the risk of an unfortunate "association" for a "repurposed" chunk of 1's and 0's becomes even more "interesting"....

August 16th, 2009, 10:42 PM	#22
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Two points... #1 - TRUTH is only an "affirmative defense", which doesn't keep you out of Court, or reduce the financial burdens, even defending oneself when completely innocent can be ruinous, as Shaun points out. #2 - I believe that when someone is a "public figure", the general standards for slander and libel become greatly reduced - otherwise the tabloids would have nothing at all to say. If Mr. Brown has as a matter of record pled guilty, it's public record, AND he is a highly public figure, so it's unlikely that he would go into a Court and find a receptive Judge... though anything is possible. Arguing that he was libeled somehow by the association with a anti-abuse charity organization would be one heck of a stretch IMO. He'd be better to play it as his own idea to make things "right", and it'd be "money in the bank" to repair his image...

October 9th, 2009, 05:06 PM	#24
Adam Reuter Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Posts: 234	My take on Copyright laws: It's a good thing. And the arrangement YouTube/Google made with record companies is a good thing. YouTube avoids lawsuits and the recording industry makes a potential profit. Copyright is all about protecting someones right to copy. Just look at the word! Since it costs a lot of money to send lawyers out to people, especially people who aren't really causing damage (in many cases of online videos there would be little monetary basis to sue upon) the compromise/solution that YouTube came up with (iTunes/Amazon.com links) is cool. The YouTube user doesn't get slapped with a lawsuit/doesn't lose their YouTube account, YouTube/Google doesn't get slapped with an infringement lawsuit and the record company's/artists profit. Everyone wins.